User talk:Petlaramski

Sir

I'm afraid that the list of honorary British Knights disproves your claim that no American official has ever been knighted while in office. Many generals and admirals in particular have been (e.g. Dwight D. Eisenhower was knighted in 1945). And while anybody can theoretically call himself what he likes, it would be discourteous in the extreme for someone granted an honorary knighthood to use the prefix "Sir", which is not authorised by Britain, the country granting the award, to those who are not subjects of the Sovereign. One would hope that someone granted such a high honour would not show such a lack of courtesy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the USA is not alone in requiring official approval for officials to receive foreign honours. British government officials and military personnel require permission from the Sovereign to receive any foreign honour, no matter how minor. Granting such permission is usually a formality, but it is required nonetheless. I'm sure this is the case with most other countries too. Therefore the section on the USA, as well as being inaccurate, really singles out the USA for unnecessarily special treatment in a general article. We try to avoid bias towards one country or another on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion on "American usage" is as follows:

America really does deserve special consideration regarding the granting and use of titles and honours - for it is a former colony (and by far and away the most powerful of the English speaking ones) of Britain. It was regarded as the premier possession of the Empire, and even as late as the mid 1800's, when the balance of power finally slipped from Britain's fingers on the North American Continent as a whole, many still held the former power, its institutions and customs with great reverence. I contend that many still do.

It is not as though we are comparing America with Namibia or the like. Accordingly, I suggest, an encyclopaedic entry discussing the concept of titles such as "Sir", coupled with the huge American interest and dare I say 'respect' for such esteemed 'old country' honours should discuss the pertinent points.

Most American's (even highly educated one's, New York Times editors etc) believe it to be true that their Law prevents the use of such foreign titles to any of their citizens - ever. This is clearly not the case. The Wikeipedia article is a suitable place to clarify this point.

I shall not engage in child like "undo" ing activity on this point, but I do feel you should address these issues, and act accordingly. More information is better - let the reader decide.

Incidently, holding that the premise "where you're actually born - automatically forms your primary regional/national identity" to be true; I'm a little confused on how you can claim to be both Cornish and English at the same time.

Regards Petlaramski (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly may be worthwhile clarifying that the law on the use of titles holds true for any people who are not subjects of the Queen, no matter what their nationality.

Cornwall is an integral part of England and has been for as long as there has been an England, despite what some misguided souls would have you believe. Saying I am both Cornish and English is exactly the same as someone saying they were both a Londoner and English or both Californian and American. Although I dispute that where you are born constitutes your primary identity; I would tend more to it being where you are brought up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]